It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Sanctuary city mayors prepare for clash with Trump administration

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Wardaddy454

It depends. If they had the freedom to allocate funds, tax as they see fit they could come out pretty well if done right. They would essentially be a country within a state.


Yea a terribly failed country. Doubt it would make it 2 years before becoming another warzone. Hell, it already sounds like one listening to the news.
edit on 17-11-2016 by Middleoftheroad because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   
We should just allocate a percentage of our federal budget to Mexico, then all the liberals should be happy...right?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad




before becoming another warzone


???


Do you know which city we are talking about?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I'm referring to Chicago as the OP brought up.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

So are you claiming it isn't already a war zone?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Why don't you take a look at my post again.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Nice edit.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




???


Do you know which city we are talking about?


Yep, and was posted before the post I just quoted you on. I don't understand your point or why you even asked if I knew which city you were referring to. Did you think I didn't read the thread?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

California's Sanctuary Cities:

Bell Gardens, California

Berkeley, California

City of Industry, California

City of Commerce, California

Coachella, California (considering)

Concord, California (reported 8/18/12)

Costa Mesa, California (reported 6/14/14)

Cypress, California (disputed 7/10/15 by Cyrpress City Manager - see below)

Davis, California

Diamond Bar, California

Downey, California

Fresno, California (disputed 7/6/10 - see below)

Lakewood, California

Long Beach, California

Los Angeles, California

Lynwood, California

Maywood, California

Montebello, California
www.sanctuarycities.info...

Forget Sanctuary Cities — Florida has 7 Sanctuary Counties



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Fresno?

I'd question that one for sure.

I did read the linked dispute and comments.

edit on 17-11-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Nice info,
There is going to be a battle for the removal of sanctuary cities all over this nation.

Before Trump did you on ATS know this problem was so prevalent?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yeah, I truncated the protests' dates and stuff for brevity.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Of course! I grew up in Los Angeles, spent a decade in San Diego and am now in the Inland Empire, California. I've lost jobs to and had to give up shifts for illegals. I've been told they have a better work ethic, they keep their heads down and don't ask for raises or favors. They don't think they "deserve" anything. They don't need unions, and they're happy to work off the books, for cheap. They don't care about overtime, sick leave, insurance, vacations, unemployment, Workers' Comp., Social Security or even days off!

I know it's a problem, but I also know them like family. Their kids go to our schools and are in the Girl Scouts, Little League and the Physics Club.

It's tough to think of them being rounded up, separated, deported, interned. They're here illegally and they're undocumented, but they're not criminals. They fine, loyal, moral and hard working people.

I don't have a solution. But I won't play neighborhood Gestapo and rat them out either.


edit on 17-11-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

lol, They most certainly are violating federal law!

Just the admission that they will do everything they can to aid and abet illegals is a violation of federal law,it`s called conspiracy and is a separate offense from actually aiding and abetting.


Conspiracy to commit the crimes of sheltering, harboring, or employing illegal aliens is a separate federal offense punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or five years imprisonment


This next part says that the cities could forfeit any vehicles and real property used in the commission of aiding and abetting illegals.


The penalty for felony harboring is a fine and imprisonment for up to five years.

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization or local government) commits a federal felony when he:

assists an alien whom he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him to obtain employment,
encourages that alien to remain in the U.S., by referring him to an employer, by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime.

www.fairus.org...

These so called sanctuary cities haven`t got a leg to stand on if the feds decide to play hardball in enforcing the immigration laws.
Mayors and city councils could be tossed in jail and the taxpayers could lose any city vehicles and property that was used to aid and abet the illegals.

That`s 5 years for conspiracy and another 5 for actually doing it, that`s a total of 10 years for each illegal that they aid and harboring.
10 years times 500,000 illegals is......

edit on 17-11-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-11-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

That's a pickle, I feel for you.

Your right it is going to be painful, either being a US citizen means something, or nothing.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: seasonal

I Googled some history.

Seems as early as last year, the leftists were laughing at everyone saying that "There were no sanctuary cities", that it was a myth!

And now we have multiple cities openly claiming to be Sanctuary Cities.


I imagine some members here, who are now arguing for sanctuary cities, were of the opinion that they didn't exist either.

Funny.




Early on, the Rightists (I guess that is a word), were using that word interchangeably with 'No Go Zone' , things that do not exist. They were saying that shariah law had been set up, in say pockets of Michigan and Minnesota. Of course, under the actual meaning, Sanctuary Cities existed where cities created a policy to help undocumented citizens avoid being detained or being deported.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

In regard to 'threatening to destroy a dadatase', the database in NYC was created with an expiration date for this very reason. I hope he wipes it now.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
The data base? What would be on this data base?


In regard to 'threatening to destroy a dadatase', the database in NYC was created with an expiration date for this very reason. I hope he wipes it now.
a reply to: reldra



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: seasonal

In regard to 'threatening to destroy a dadatase', the database in NYC was created with an expiration date for this very reason. I hope he wipes it now.



Won't matter.

The FBI will recover it anyway soon enough.




posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I remember when the Federal Government declined to enforce its own immigration law so Arizona tried to pass a law that mirrored existing law so that Arizona's officers could carry out those duties.

I remember how the Feds claimed that only the Feds had the right to decide who would or would not be enforcing immigration law and sued Arizona over it.

If that was the rationale, then sanctuary cities don't have a leg to stand on. If the Federal Government decides that immigration law will be enforced and the local law enforcement mechanisms are supposed to legally be a part of that, then the cities can't just decide not to be a part of it anymore than Arizona could decide to pass a law allowing their officers to carry out functions US Federal Officials weren't carrying out.

So if Trump says, "We will be enforcing Federal Immigration law, including these parts that mandate local law enforcement to do X, Y, Z ..." then the cities can't just decline to do that without legal consequence.

It's this thing called the Supremacy Clause the left was very, very fond of shoving in the Right's face during Obama's administration, and it will still apply even when you don't want it to.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join